Mad_Shell

@NineLine Can you please transfer this topic to the new DCS: Voice chat wishlist section? Thx!

I agree with that, but lets say that for a random joining a server it would be easier to "cheat" by just joining the room or creating a custom radio, than searching for some discord to talk with other randoms. For people knowing each others and joining a server, I agree nothing can be done here.

With the upcoming DCS in-game coms, server owners will have the option to authorize (or disable) in-game coms. However, they won't have more control. That means that if in-game coms are authorized in the server, customs radios and room mode will be allowed. That's a problem for server owners trying to make a realistic experience, as people will be able to use fantasy radio (too powerful) or even room mode, to communicate way more effectively than should be possible with only real aircraft radios. Imagine people using room mode or creating and using radios so powerful that they can communicate hundreds of km apart from eachother in Storm of War or Blue Flag, without the servers owners able to do anything other than forbid in-game coms...

Corrected tracers color for the Phalanx CIWS

Rainbows incoming!!!

No. The pilot can only use the TADS as a sensor for the IHADSS instead of the PNVS, but he can't lase.

I posted that on hoggit some time ago, but I figured out it would belong here too. I'm aware some of these suggestions would require A LOT of work, so don't take it as "I want all of that asap!", but more as what a nice ground AI and "warfare" should have in the long term. As a helicopter player, very excited for the Apache realease, and the upcoming dynamic campaign, I find myself quite often frustrated by the very, very limited ground AI. I know I'm not the only one in this case, and I also know it's not an easy task to do a decent AI (many, many variables and parameters, CPU performance). However, here are a few improvements I suggest for the future, some should be quite easy to implement, some probably quite difficult, but would undoubtly make DCS a whole new experience. Infantry: infantry should lie down on the ground when there are nearby explosions (and should take less damage by doing so) or when being targeted by machine gun or large caliber: suppression should be a thing. Units such as ATGM post and machine gun nests are much needed. We need a way to create military groups as in real life. IRL, a company is made of platoons which are made of sections etc... Let us for example create a company, and the AI should know that when attacking or retreating, at least one platoon should support and do suppressive fire while the others are moving. Because yes, infantry units should move when attacking or defending. As written by Teh_Original in the comments: " If you set up two teams in an attack/defend scenario, neither will deviate from their self assigned course, or posted position to either take cover, or to re-aquire a shot. There is no way in the ME to get this behavior either. In addition, Ground AI currently mimics Skyrim's "Guess it was just the wind." reaction to a threat disappearing out of line of sight. Ground AI should either remember the last seen position, or seek out the anticipated next sighting location." Armor: Corrections to vehicles capabilities! Many stats are wrong in game: tanks reverse speeds are very wrong (example: Leclerc reverse speed in DCS: 9km/h, IRL: 35-40 km/h...), tanks accuracy is nerfed to the ground compared to real life (especially when moving, they can't hit a thing while IRL it's really not a problem). Option to add vegetation and nets camo on MBTs in the mission editor. Such camo would limit visual, thermal and radar spotting, and create interesting scenarios for helicopter players in particular. Add defensive capabilites: many vehicles can deploy smoke when threatened, or when lased for some. Same as point 3 for infantry. In the mission editor, let us the option to use reverse speed to move vehicles! It would allow the players to create pop up attacks, a very important tactic for tanks. Artillery: Units like infantry, armor, etc... should be able to call for friendly artillery fire on a spotted ennemy if there is some friendly artillery in range. Artillery should then move a bit if there is ennemy artillery, because counter-battery should be a thing when in range and if there is a counter-battery radar. Correct artillery accuracy! Modern artillery generally has an accuracy of a few tens of meters at ranges of tens of kilometers. In DCS the accuracy is nowhere as good... Many artillery units should be able to use smoke or illumination munitions. For example infantry and armor units should be able to call for smoke fire if they're losing a fight (for example infantry attacked by armor, or casualties > 30%) to retreat. More global improvements AI units should communicate! When an EW radar spots incoming ennemy planes, convoys should disperse or hide in a forest, interceptors and air defenses should react accordingly (IADS). When a attack helicopter has sneaked up without being spotted and attacks an artillery battery for example, that battery should be able to inform other units, and maybe 10mn later the helicopter will have the bad surprise to see 2 Mig 29 incoming. For long range SAMs, please make the default intercept range something like 60% or 70%. No SAM operator would engage a fighter at max range. Fragmentation damage (already planned by ED, source somewhere in the forums). many bushes and trees are indestructible and will block even MBTs... Ground units laser accuracy against aircraft. Hitting them is hard IRL. Really hard.

Mistral missile is able to lock and track ground vehicles on the Growling Sidewinder server. However after the vehicles started moving not able to get a lock again. No lock possible in single player. track is short but too big to be posted here...), so posted on discord: https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/543358251694292992/920819768129384452

Hey Flappie, any news on the topic? NASAMS is way weaker than it should be without the multi target engagement capability.

That's great news, thx for the reply BN!

The problem is that it does not depends on individual units radars, the problem is that RCS is not defined for bombs in DCS. They don't have an RCS at all, so you can have the very best radar in the world, it won't see bombs in DCS.

Guys, why the hell does that discussion even exists, when we know that the new guidance API is not even finished yet, and range gates are not implemented, among other things? Let ED finish the API first, then everyone can discuss what seems right or wrong...

There is a difference between modelling a whole redfor jet based on "believable" systems and fm (which is taking things way too far) and modelling a few classified systems from an aircraft which is otherwise modelled very realistically (which imo should be done if it's to end up with an aircraft closer to the real deal than if the system was not modelled at all).

Thx, I checked the general forum but forgot to check the wishlist section lol. As for fantasy implementation, wouldn't a "believable" implementation be more realistic than no implementation at all? Plenty of things in DCS are not true to the real deal. For example all the electronic warfare/radars aspects are almost fantasy compared to real life. Would you prefere ED to not implement those aspect at all rather than what we have now?

In the TSD video, Wags says that the SA page, which uses a secondary datalink to show blue force units (and red force units that were spotted and referenced) is not planned due to sensitivity issues and lack of references. Now, to me it seems like a big deal. It looks like a very useful tool on the battlefield (it's literally the "situation awareness" page...). If possible, it would be a way better and more realistic solution to do something "close enough", even if icons and options are not like the real deal. Automatically showing blue forces and red forces spotted by them on the SA page would give relatively similar capabilities.

I agree, it would be great if they fixed the tanks reverse speeds that are all wrong (not fun to reverse when you play a tank in DCS, and your reverse speed is 9 kmph, when IRL it's 35 kmph...), tanks not able to hit anything while moving when irl they have >95% hit rate even on the move, or the way too large artillery dispersion (irl it's in tens of meters, not hundreds...)...

Announcement on Polychop Discord server: https://discord.com/channels/303482672834019330/632737610678140948/918461363146338334 (posted on reddit too for those who don't have discord: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/rcfwex/announcement_on_polychop_discord_server/)

Tunguska was unable to get a single missile hit on straight flying planes. Missile seems to have a very erratic behaviour with exagerated oscillations. engagement_range_Tunguska.trk

While the option "interception range" works for some SAMs (Patriot for example), it doesn't have any effect for the Tunguska, NASAMS and several others. They continue to engage at max range, no matter what the specified percentage is. engagement_range_NASAMS.trk engagement_range_Tunguska.trk

Up! Because it seems quite important to have a somewhat realistic G fatigue implemented for a combat flight sim... Seeing real life pilots turning G effect off when playing DCS because it's so unrealistic tells you something is wrong...

Ah, must be accurate then, haven't seen that documentary in a long time

You're in for a disappointement if you expect an 8mi range... Hellfire range is about 8km ;)

Preview of the dynamic weather posted by Glowing Amraam on Discord 3EmDr5H.mp4

I haven't tested that bug, but more generally speaking, missiles and rockets are too silent in DCS. Basically any missile fired should be heard several kilometers away, those things are really loud irl, while in DCS you barely hear some quiet 'pssshhhhh'

I don't know if you guys are aware but the Kuznetsov 2017 is now part of the free assets (latest open beta, but no idea since when it's available in the free assets)...